We thought the same thing about Clinton.
Both appeared to hate this nation in line with a disgust for our founding principles.
With Obama it was much more pronounced, him actually inviting terrorist members into the White House to advise him.
On the record, the Muslim Brotherhood was not a declared terrorist group, but al Qaeda ind ISIS were, and we armed and funded all three*. ISIS may have only been a back door supported effort, funds redirected in the field.
Obama’s actions were clearly taken to destroy U. S. influence around the world. He bowed on our behalf, instantly declaring our nation inferior.
He screwed with our institutions, our morals, and our values. He hated this nation with a passion.
So there were concerns with these two based on their contempt of our society, moral code, and founding. They wanted to fundamentally change this nation, none more than Obama.
Some folks could understandably think it unhinged to fear an Obama refusal to relinquish power, but that in and of itself could be seen as just as unhinged.
You would have to have significant embedded government support for it. For that reason I think it unlikely..., however...
If you despise a nation and want to make it weaker on the global stage, what better thing to do than refuse to relinquish power and call on your supporters in the media, the public, the embedded government, and the embedded military to join you. It would instantly split a chunk of the populace off, and perhaps gain more embedded support.
Win or lose, you achieve at least some success toward your goal.
I don’t think there’s a downside to pondering the question if he would do this. I’d rather go into something like this with my eyes open. I would always be thankful for being wrong.
As for your opening compliment, I’m afraid any speculation of that type would belie my pay scale here, but thanks.
Great post.
Smarts and pay are rarely on an equal par, i’ve learned!
Cheating, lying and backstabbing help more sometimes, at least in certain companies in Manhattan.